Liberal Minds and Homegrown Terrorism: Disbelief and Disrespect

I wonder sometimes if the real enemy is not the Islamist terrorists but their leftist toadies who would tie America's hands so that she could be raped.

Enemies everywhere, bunker mentality, humourous apart from the spit fleckled intolerance and transparent powerless rage, the last 30% imploding on itself in desperate denial.

Why are your panties in a bunch? Are you commander in chief? Are you the 4-star calling the shots? Your a person (hopefully) behind a keyboard and screen just pissed off that people think differently than you... You don't directly affect anything going on, you are a drop in a sea screaming to be heard. You can't win everyone over with your thinking, the left can't win you over to their side, so let's just crack open a bud light (or a Bitburger for me in Germany) and we'll chillax.

Tom, we lefties love to fight terrorists. We live to fight terrorists, but it is just so time consuming to have to push Bushies out of the way to get to them. While you think that we have struck such a blow against terrorism because a few clowns talked about doing something in New York while real terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan are running free and have the means to do real damage because Bush and his buddies have us tied down in a civil war in Iraq. Pathetic.

Twoshells,

Your thoughts, and knowing that millions of your fellow Germans feel the same way as you, explain a lot about why your country's future is in grave danger.

Luckydog,

Sadly the war on terror is a global phenomenon and, as the President has said repeatedly, it will be going on for the rest of our lives, whether we want it to or not. "The rest of our lives" being long or short, depending upon whether or not we fight.

Winsome,

You may want to take a few less puffs on the old peace pipe, bud.

I'm taking this off the tracker. Let me know if you ever get around to answering, brother.

they are the same people that complain that Bush didn't recognize the signs before 9-11 and stop that from happening...

Personally I find real logic in the concept of stopping a terrorist act before it happens, not investigating what happened after it was carried out.

Of course they are not mutually exclusive. It is very logical to try stop criminal acts before they happen. This does not mean that every effort in the name of doing so is a good idea.

Some peope seem to badly confuse intent of an action and the actual effect. The war in Iraq may be intended to stop acts before they happen, but there is absolutely no evidnce that it has. Quite the opposite, the invasion of Iraq is making terrorist acts more likely.

One way to stop an act before it happens is to capture the perpetrators. Catching Ossamma Bin Laden for exaple. OF course, once again how you go about doing it, matters. If you raise more anger and hate in the process then you will be worse off then when you started.

Doing things that strengthen your enemy in the name of prevention is not logical.

Unfortunately some people would rather vent their dislike of a President than actually address the issue.

Ironic that both you and the following comment spend more time venting against the imagined possitions of you disagree with than actually address the issue. The real issue is whether or strategy is helping us, not what you imagine those you disagree with belive. So many Bush supporters seem to focus on what they imagine liberals believe instead of the actual facts.

I have provided numerous examples of analysis from a broad variety of sources that conclude the Bush approach is worsening our nations security. In response I have received little more than feelings and venting like this.

I have provided numerous examples of analysis from a broad variety of sources that conclude the Bush approach is worsening our nations security. In response I have received little more than feelings and venting like this.

It must be in a different thread then.

Terrorism has been on the rise now for about 30 years now, with increasing effect and capability, to blame the current President alone for an increase in terrorism is unrealistic, especially considering that the largest attack of this sort was planned under his predecessor's watch. And no, I'm not blaming him for it either.

This comes in part from religious extremism, the desire to convert the world by the sword and some even trying to bring on the end of days to bring religious paradise to earth. It also comes in part because people want power, and a lot of the fighting in Iraq is just that, somebody trying to take Saddam's place as the big man in Iraq (BMIQ).

The biggest screw up was failing to anticipate that taking down the BMIQ would allow all of the factions that he killed off when they poked their heads up to find themselves able to operate. This happened in when Yugoslavia broke up and to some degree could have been a model for the fall of Saddam, they should have had something strong enough to take his place.

This has been far from a perfect operation, slow to adapt to changing tactics and planned in many cases by officers that won their spurs in the cold war and thinking grand strategy of field armies rather than the scattered nature of insurgency warfare.

Get used to terrorism, its going to be here for a long time and it would have been on the rise no matter who is in the White House, because it was already on the rise, emboldened by a growing series of successes. The only thing I see as different is that they are focused mainly on one place now, where without Iraq they would be more active across the globe.

Get used to terrorism, its going to be here for a long time and it would have been on the rise no matter who is in the White House, because it was already on the rise, emboldened by a growing series of successes.

It has become such a cliche with the right that the terrorists are emboldened by this and emboldened by that, emboldened by the left, emboldened by the debate on Iraq, emboldened by successes, can't you Bushies think of some new scare phrases? How about emboldened by their success in seeing Bush lie us into a no win civil war which so far has cost the lives of almost three thousand five hundred of our finest men and women, many thousands of wounded and a half a trillion dollars? And they didn't even have to do anything. Amazing. You over on the right get used to terrorism if you want to, but on the left when we gain the white house again, we will use our brains and will to defeat it.

Assumption is the mother of all screw-ups.

It has become such a cliche with the right that the terrorists are emboldened by this and emboldened by that, emboldened by the left, emboldened by the debate on Iraq, emboldened by successes, can't you Bushies think of some new scare phrases?

I don't do political parties, I am a registered independent, if I was a Kool-Aid drinker for either party or position I wouldn't have pointed out flaws with both worldviews.

How about emboldened by their success in seeing Bush lie us into a no win civil war which so far has cost the lives of almost three thousand five hundred of our finest men and women, many thousands of wounded and a half a trillion dollars? And they didn't even have to do anything.

Been there... no I mean literally, my boot prints cover a lot of desert over there, so I might actually have a little insight about what is going on over there.

And they didn't even have to do anything. Amazing. You over on the right get used to terrorism if you want to, but on the left when we gain the white house again, we will use our brains and will to defeat it.

There has been a steady escalation of terrorism since the 80's, there is nothing inaccurate in that statement, and with every successful operation they have gotten more and more insight, training and ability and have launched larger attacks at more difficult targets. Now, what is inaccurate about that statement? Because it doesn't matter if you're a leftie or rightie the terrorists aren't going away, and they aren't stopping.

And I'll remind you that the "lefties" were in power for the WTC Bombing, Khobar towers, a few embassy bombings and the USS Cole, I'm not impressed by the brain power you're bragging about. At least the "righties" let all of the brave men and women you talk about finally get to shoot back.

We've seen that the leftist method was inneffective, and now we're seeing the rightist method fairing not much better. So, hopefully one of these days people get bored of finger pointing and sit down and have a little honest communication, because all the yelling and hand-wringing we're still seeing is going nowhere and solving nothing.

to blame the current President alone for an increase in terrorism is unrealistic,

It sure is. To suggest I wrote or even implied that is either sloppy or dishonest. The point is that invasion of Iraq has worsened that problem and absolutely nothing you write here addresses that issue.

It must be in a different thread then.

I was speaking of the whole article - here are two examples.

http://purelypolitical.newsvine.com/_news/2007/06/04/754214-liberal-minds-and-homegrown-terrorism-disbelief-and-disrespect#c756897

http://purelypolitical.newsvine.com/_news/2007/06/04/754214-liberal-minds-and-homegrown-terrorism-disbelief-and-disrespect#c757134

The only thing I see as different is that they are focused mainly on one place now, where without Iraq they would be more active across the globe.

Do you have any evidence of this talking point and speculative assumption? Do you honestly believe there is a set supply of terrorists and they have all moved to Iraq? There are more attacks across the globe not less. The fact is that most of terrorists in Iraq are Iraqis not outsiders. Of those outsiders studies have concluded that

The War radicalized most foreign fighters in Iraq Saudi and Israeli studies show that most foreign fighters were not terrorists before Iraq war.

The Iraq war has helped motivate terrorists in Iraq and around the globe. It helps fund al Queda and train them. The eveidence is right in front of you.

A top American military official who tracks terrorism in Iraq and the surrounding region, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the topic, said: "Do I think in the future the jihad will be fueled from the battlefield of Iraq? Yes. More so than the battlefield of Afghanistan."

Ahh Yes. and we know you just want an honest debate, right. I mean, that is why you use language like

righties to come out of their hidey holes

I probably define "embolden the terrorists" differently that you'd seen in most occasions, success breeds success, and Al Qaeda rode a wave since the early 90's, mainly because so little was done about those strikes. The scale and scope of their operations has declined, and hopefully it stays that way.

There have been and still are a lot of very nasty groups out there, just off the top of my head there has been the Japanese Red Army, Shining Path, Baeder-Meinhoff, Red Brigade, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, IRA, the Weather Underground. In their time each was the top of the game, and were slowly warn down and cut off until their effectiveness was all but gone. Some like the IRA discovered politics that didn't involve bombs, but a whole lot were arrested or killed in a war that nobody has wanted to acknowledge because the paradigm of warfare doesn't include terrorists. They have always been treated as criminals in the past, and now its being approached completely differently.

The only thing that will stay the same is that it takes time, patience and good intel to bring them down. If people aren't willing to invest those then look to see Al Qaeda and others change their tactics again and go back to hitting us where we live, like they did New York, Washington DC, London and Madrid.

Bosnia and Kosovo started out as UN missions, I still remember seeing guys in blue berets handcuffed to targets to make sure they couldn't be bombed, and shortly afterwords NATO took over and turned a peacekeeping mission into a military operation. And you'll notice we still have forces stationed there. Patience and time.

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/letter_in_english.pdf

This is an interesting read, in July 2005 Osama bin Laden's chief lieutenant, Ayman Zawahiri wrote a The 6,000-word letter to a former Iraqi insurgent leader Abu Musab Zarqawi basically laying out al Qaeda's long-term goals in Iraq and the Middle East. Zawahiri, an Egyptian doctor who fused his own Islamic movement with bin Laden's al Qaeda in the late 1990s, was killed in June 2006.

The letter makes many wide ranging points from reminding Zarqawi of the US leaving Vietnam and urging him to take immediate political action: "We must take the initiative and impose a fait accompli upon our enemies, instead of the enemy imposing one on us." The lengthy missive also hit him up for money due to their own sources being cut off.

It is an interesting read:

(3) The Muslim masses - for many reasons, and this is not the place to discuss it - do not rally except against an outside occupying enemy, especially if the enemy is firstly Jewish, and secondly American.

This, in my limited opinion, is the reason for the popular support that the mujahedeen enjoy in Iraq, by the grace of God.

I make no excuses for that language whether directed toward those on the right or the left. Not when it is coming from people here on the vine. Please don't think that because you have seen worse directed the other way that it somehow excuses this behavior. The Vine is ours to engage in discussions and arguments on and it is in large part up to us to self police as well.

Oh, (sorry for the double post here) and one additional point here. I found your language less offensive and more indicative of not really wishing to discuss or debate anything. It struck me as you wish to lecture, not engage.

I am a republican. not an independant. I would likely register as a libertarian if I believed the party had a chance. So far I have not been convinced of that. I have not claimed to be an independant, merely that I am more interested in discussing the issues then listening to rants/lectures on either side. I try (don't always succeed mind you) to use language that is not an attack on the other side. You catch more flies with honey then with vinegar is how the saying goes, right? I also have not attacked the messenger here, what I have done has been to question your motives and techniques. Quite different.

I also have not attacked the messenger here, what I have done has been to question your motives and techniques. Quite different

LOL! I didnt attack you I just criticized your motives and actions. Do you believe your own semantic games?

Why do you feel the need to question his motives? Why not just address the issue?

I do not agree, I think terrorism and terrorists have been dying in droves under bush. (I do wish he did not hold back tho. We could have killed many more of them...)
your turn.

LuckyDog - you are making the assumption that those terrorists did not exist prior to Bush. I think you are incorrect. I think we are pulling them out of the shadows and the ditches and holes and I am glad that we are. I would not be content to let them fester and grow and wait and plan and attack on their own schedule. That is how we got 9-11.

Can you try hitting reply instead of starting a new thread each time?

I am making no such assumption rather you are making an assumption. I provided a source which leads back to the NIE for last year. We got 9-11 because Condi didn't listen to Tenant or at least that is what Tenat says in his book. No Iraqi's have flown airplanes into buildings in the US by the way so why are we killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? Are they all terrorists?

I have seen no evidence that we are killing 'hundreds of thousands' of Iraqi's. I suspect your sources.

I did not say we were in Iraq because of 9-11, so why are you making that connection? What are you basing that on? I am not interested in sitting here and hashing it out with you the many reasons why we are in Iraq. I figure you have your own ideas and no matter what I say it won't change your mind.

You ask if all the people being killed in Iraq are terrorists. Probably not. Lots of them are. If you look around you will find lots of stories of the foreign fighters streaming in from other countries. Dont forget that Sadaam released thousands and thousands of criminals from jail prior to the invasion and how many former members of his guard and military were criminals? Least by current standards?

How bout the thousands upon thousands of Iraqi's that line up to serve as police officers and soldiers as they try to get control of their country? How about the sacrifice that they and their families are making? Do you think we should just leave and forget them? Look at the link I seeded a couple of days ago and read what the experts are saying about us leaving Iraq.

Look at the link I seeded a couple of days ago and read what the experts are saying about us leaving Iraq.

Yes because the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page is a great source for unbiased expert opinion? These apologists bend over backwards to support Bush .

I read what a cherry picked sampling chosen with hand picked quotes by the WSJ have to say.

Of course, your story is entirely beside the point, since the question was whether Bush's policies have increased terrorism.

How about the sacrifice that they and their families are making? Do you think we should just leave and forget them?

Yes. They're not Americans, so they're not my problem. Your question is predicated on the assumption that staying there is helping, which is debatable in itself.

I feel that we really made the mess that is there, and we are responsible for helping to clean it up.

A bull walks into a china shop and accidentally knocks over a china tea set accidentally. The bull feels bad about breaking the china, so the bull resolves to stay and help clean it up. He turns to the left to reach down and pick up some shards with his lips - and knocks down an entire display stand behind him. He spins around to pick that up - and knocks over 11 priceless antiques. At what point of utter destruction has the bull met his moral obligation to stay and clean up the mess he has made?

Place the blame where it belongs. I actually agree with you, here. Bin Laden deserves the balme for the bombing, and Bush the blame for not living up to the promises made to do more about terrorism, pre 9/11. Those are two different issues.

We should restrict our sources to unbiased sources, like MotherJones.com There are no unbiased sources; just "less analytical" and "more analytical" sources.

I feel that we really made the mess that is there, and we are responsible for helping to clean it up. Also, a stable, democratic Iraq is less of a threat to America than an Iraq run by terrorists or extrememists. A stable, democratic Iraq is really not a possibility, at this point. At least not one that we "install", like putting in a dishwasher.

See, like I stated before, you show NO desire at all to have a discussion. that is a shame.

I am not interested in sitting here and hashing it out with you the many reasons why we are in Iraq. I figure you have your own ideas and no matter what I say it won't change your mind.

I thought the discussion was over. Then you say:

You ask if all the people being killed in Iraq are terrorists. Probably not. Lots of them are. If you look around you will find lots of stories of the foreign fighters streaming in from other countries. Dont forget that Sadaam released thousands and thousands of criminals from jail prior to the invasion and how many former members of his guard and military were criminals? Least by current standards?

How bout the thousands upon thousands of Iraqi's that line up to serve as police officers and soldiers as they try to get control of their country? How about the sacrifice that they and their families are making? Do you think we should just leave and forget them? Look at the link I seeded a couple of days ago and read what the experts are saying about us leaving Iraq.

I thought you had ended the discussion about Iraq and then you go on to present further arguments. Make up your mind.

What would you like to discuss since you refuse to discuss Iraq? I am sure you do have many reasons for us being there as the original one turned out to be a huge lie and the follow on ones just don't seem to catch on with the American people so I can see why you might be uncomfortable with Iraq. Anyway, what would you like to discuss? Homegrown terror and the fact that a lot of Americans refused to be cowed by Bush and Cheney crying "the sky is falling" for 6 years? Yeah, let's discuss that. Or how about Bush refusing to secure our borders or inspect cargo containers or even cargo loaded on airliners while trying to farm out port security to middle eastern countries? That seems a little bit dangerous to me DAWeb or is that another example of liberal bias, disbelief and disrespect? You pick the topic DAWeb.

I am sorry if you are having trouble keeping up. I clearly said I was not going to discuss

the many reasons why we are in Iraq.

. that is hardly what I went on to discuss.

If you are unable to keep track of the difference between Iraq and why we went into Iraq, I hold out very little hope for a logical or meaningful discussion with you on many subjects.

DAWeb you are right about one thing, you are incapable of logical or meaningful discussion. Keep drinking the kool aid.

I hardly feel like ad hominems constitute a logical argument. Can you really expect DAWeb to say anything in response to the above post?

Maybe you should put way your solipsism and re-evaluate whether you have any more fruitful, substantive arguments to expound upon in this discussion, or if you are through posting.

If you look around you will find lots of stories of the foreign fighters streaming in from other countries.

Yes and the vast majority of them were radicalized by the Iraq war and were not terrorists before. Those that survive will be further trained and committed. Killing terrorists with an invasion that would not have existed but for the invasion is hardly productive.

This body count mentality didnt work in Vietnam and doesnt work now.

Two new studies, one by the Saudi government and one by an Israeli think tank, which "painstakingly analyzed the backgrounds and motivations of hundreds of foreigners entering Iraq to fight the United States" have found that most foreign fighters in Iraq were not terrorists before the Iraq war, but were "radicalized by the war itself." The Boston Globe reported on Sunday that the studies " cast doubt" on claims by President Bush that terrorists have "seized on the opportunity to make Iraq the 'central front' in a battle against the United States."

cdparker - I have given up on DAWeb as being anything but a lightweight who has no logical argument in him as in this post:

I am sorry if you are having trouble keeping up. I clearly said I was not going to discuss the many reasons why we are in Iraq. that is hardly what I went on to discuss. If you are unable to keep track of the difference between Iraq and why we went into Iraq, I hold out very little hope for a logical or meaningful discussion with you on many subjects.

However if you feel up to dealing with my "solipsism" bring it on. In fact you can tag team me if you like and feel free to use all the obscure words that you can as I have a dictionary.

when you are able to provide a logical argument your comments might be taken seriously, instead you have argued like Ted Kennedy after happy hour has started.

Thanks DaWeb, I take that as a complement. A drunk liberal can out debate a sober conservative anytime ;<)

Funny, you couldn't do it sober or drunk.

That's your best shot? LOL You crack me Dweeb.

It would appear that conservative discourse has sunk to the point where they reduce concepts to kindling then argue about the kindling.
I think they argue because without argument they cannot survive, the point isn't to win, winning is arguing. The point is to avoid self analysis, which, given the lowflying suburban psychoanalysis posing as lofty observation of 'the left' which, let's be honest, would embarrass anyone not already immune to embarrassment by compound prior failure, and lets just note also, immune from embarrassment because of a void where principles of applied thought as it applies to the construction of an argument should be.
The attempts at constructing argument have got no better than,

"Actually, they're inescapable deductive conclusions that follow from premises put forward in this discussion if you want to get all semantical about it."

Which, you know, to anyone who knows what that's trying to mean, is funny.

yep, stick a fork in it, this one's done. Tat ta.

Whereas your reliance on your own unsubstantiated opinion is clearly the way to lose multiple arguments with aplomb.

I can afford a little weakness. What was your point again? This whole topic is an ad hominem.
It's simply a statement of fact that in terms of debate there is an impressive vacancy where tools for constructing evidence to support assertions should be.
Never mind, faith conquers all right?

DAWeb and Bartleby,

Instead of repeating the same thing over and over why not actually address the issues that you claim you want to address?

See, e.g. http://purelypolitical.newsvine.com/_news/2007/06/04/754214-liberal-minds-and-homegrown-terrorism-disbelief-and-disrespect#c765176

http://purelypolitical.newsvine.com/_news/2007/06/04/754214-liberal-minds-and-homegrown-terrorism-disbelief-and-disrespect#c761828

Bartleby,

You do undestand you comment applies to both sides of this argument right? See, e.g. http://purelypolitical.newsvine.com/_news/2007/06/04/754214-liberal-minds-and-homegrown-terrorism-disbelief-and-disrespect#c765970

Heck this whole thread starts of as an adhominem attack on liberals.

Is that your way of saying you have no rational substantive response?

I laugh at myself and the world around me constantly. I don't retreat into self generated tittering within political discussions however as i recognise others would see that as a poorly camouflaged defensive gambit. Most comedians recognise one of the most dramatic failures available to them is to insist an audience laugh. Sort of defeats the purpose of comedy to have to define it after the event.
Rhetorical inversions might be amusing but I hardly think a lack of applause signals any need for psychological concern.

I think the horse is dead, y'all can quit kicking it.

Hatuxka, you talking about the congressional approval numbers again?

Dweeb - That's a goodin. You made a funny. But did you know that

most polls show that the current (110th) Congress' approval is higher than the previous (109th) Congress' approval -- especially in the 109th Congress' second year:

Here is your link good buddy to check it out. You can thank me later. I guess that means that real Americans must like the Democratically controlled congress better than the Republican controlled congress. Now who woulda thunk it?

Congressional approval ratings are low, alright. They'd be a little higher if the average wasn't being dragged down by the Republicans. Most polls don't seem to break it out very well, but take a look at this one where Congressional Democrats are listed separately from Republicans (about halfway down). Although Congress as a whole has an approval rating even lower than a snake's belly President Bush's (Bush 28%, Congress overall 27%), Congressional Republicans are actually below Bush, at 22%, while Congressional Democrats are 7 points ahead of Bush. It appears that the American people don't think much of Congress in general, but things would look a little bit better if the Republicans in Congress weren't holding the numbers back.

How can you effectively establish causation as to why the approval ratings are low? Polls, if they are even properly designed, do not establish statistical causation.

Let's face it, this congress, like the last, has done NOTHING. Nothing has changed, the Congress is still the President's budgetary @!$%#, they couldn't stand up to him on Iraq spending like they promised coming into the midterms. Immigration just got put on the backburner because of a last minute change in the bill that lost support to invoke cloture and get an up or down vote, healthcare and social security are still a mess, etc, etc, etc.

First, all the dems needed was a majority. They still can't get a unified front and accomplish something, so now a majority just isn't enough. Neither party seems to be able to get anything meaningful done, maybe we aren't so different after all.

Of the 1,001 American adults polled online...

Brad, I went to WSJ online and read about your supposed congressional approval rating poll...for about ten seconds. Do you know anything about polling design? If you did, you would know that online polls are inherently biased, and have no statistical weight. This is a convenience sample, and doesn't represent the population at all.

cdparker, thanks for the comment on my comment. I appreciate your knowledge and understanding of the issue, and I really don't mind having you disparage me personally over it. Some people just don't like to read things they disagree with, and feel that lashing out will somehow make the disappointment go away. Not that I believe that's what is going on here. I'm sure you're above that sort of trollish behavior. Somehow, I suspect that you have some reason to believe that Congressional Republicans deserve to have a markedly higher approval rating than their Democratic counterparts. Perhaps you believe that Americans have completely forgotten the do-nothing Republican 109th Congress, the scandals, the unwillingness to share power to get things done. Perhaps you believe that the William Jefferson indictment and the inability to persuade the President to agree to a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq has convinced Americans that the 110th Congress is already a failure. Perhaps you have some reason to believe those things that you'd be willing to share. It's not likely to make you feel as good as it does to insult my intelligence, but it might serve to illuminate the issue a bit more. Do tell.

I said nothing of my personal beliefs, I merely commented on the weak statistical strength of this poll sample.

If you have nothing to say, you concede the statistics are weak, which they are.

Find me a randomized sample of adequate sample size rather than an online convenience poll, and I will tell you the stats are strong.

My political bent has nothing to do with it.

Don't be so hard on the Republicans - their hearts are usually in the right place, even if their actions are often subservive to the goals of freedom and liberty, even if their misguided policies often enhance and promote the goals of "the terrorists." When the day comes when they wake up and realize how their underserved loyalty to a truly dangerous administration has been at odds with the principles that Republicans have fought alongside Democrats for lo these many years to protect, the backlash will be stunning, and we will likely see a reemergence of a Republican Party that truly stands for freedom and liberty, rather than promoting the agenda of those terrorists and corporate cronies who have the elimination of democracy and freedom as common goals. In the meantime, there's no need to alienate them by referring to their membership as "subversive" or as "an enemy in ... [our] midst," even if it may appear that way.

I don't know Brad, the Republicans have supported the Neo-Cons for so long and been so subverted by their arguments that I am not sure their are enough "real Republicans" left anymore to mount a challenge to the crazies that have taken over their party. Judging by the feeble attempts to attack the left here in this thread I don't hold out a great deal of hope though.

Judging by the feeble attempts to attack the left here in this thread I don't hold out a great deal of hope though.

Well, there is that, I guess.

epiphany sorbet,

You wrote:

engages in espionage or sabotage

Do you have any examples? We do have a Presdient who effectively sabotaged a CIA covert operative by outing her identity and releasing classified information for the sole purpose of political gain. You arent calling them an enemy within are you?

One of the few documented cases of espionage I am aware of involved Lawrence Anthony Franklin.

U.S. Air Force Reserve colonel who has pleaded guilty to passing information about U.S. policy towards Iran to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the foremost pro-Israel lobbying organization in the U.S, while he was working for the Defense Department in an attempt to get the information passed on to the United States National Security Council, which he could not do through regular Pentagon channels.

Perhaps you are referring to those who seek to undermine the Constitution and engage in illegal surveillance of the American people? Surely you are not referring to those who seek to uphold the Constitution?